The best political system of the modern era was the Weimar Republic. Sadly, the freedoms presented by it were abused by Adolf Hitler who used it to take over Germany. Ideally, there would be some kind of balance between capitalism and socialism. In practise neither pure capitalism or pure socialism really work that well. Pure Capitalism doesn't work because over time the seperation of wealth becomes very extreme and so the majority of the population would be stuck at the bottom whilst the rich elite would remain at the top, there also would need to be a regular economic collapse in order for wealth to continue increasing (regular being every decade or there abouts). Pure Socialism doesn't work because it is human nature to be greedy. No matter how good the intentions of those starting out in the political system, somewhere down the line there is likely to be someone who disagrees and wants more for themself. Also, the general population may want more as well.

A combination between the two would mean that whilst everybody has the ability to become wealthy, people aren't left to fend for themselves. Free education, health care, speech and thought would be the basis of the political system. The rich would be taxed more than the not-rich (lets assume that in this system nobody is "poor") but they wouldn't be taxed to the point where they are no better off than everyone else otherwise there wouldn't really be an incentive to work hard enough to become rich.

In theory... I'd love a cooperative anarchy, but people are too selfish and/or lazy for that.

In practice, I'd probably say democracy, even though it is an extremely conservative system that is very resistant to change. Then again, maybe this is good to dampen out extremes due to events shifting the public opinion.

The best political system of the modern era was the Weimar Republic. Sadly, the freedoms presented by it were abused by Adolf Hitler who used it to take over Germany. Ideally, there would be some kind of balance between capitalism and socialism. In practise neither pure capitalism or pure socialism really work that well. Pure Capitalism doesn't work because over time the seperation of wealth becomes very extreme and so the majority of the population would be stuck at the bottom whilst the rich elite would remain at the top, there also would need to be a regular economic collapse in order for wealth to continue increasing (regular being every decade or there abouts). Pure Socialism doesn't work because it is human nature to be greedy. No matter how good the intentions of those starting out in the political system, somewhere down the line there is likely to be someone who disagrees and wants more for themself. Also, the general population may want more as well.

A combination between the two would mean that whilst everybody has the ability to become wealthy, people aren't left to fend for themselves. Free education, health care, speech and thought would be the basis of the political system. The rich would be taxed more than the not-rich (lets assume that in this system nobody is "poor") but they wouldn't be taxed to the point where they are no better off than everyone else otherwise there wouldn't really be an incentive to work hard enough to become rich.

I fully agree with you there Lopez, somewhere in between Capitalism and Socialism, so that it's balanced.

Ever system has its weaknesses. each system was always defined as a great system, until simple minds discovered. "Hey, I can do and this and exploit the system." currently the govern system of the globe is the monetary system so far it has usurped the rights and privileges of thousands and created the largest destitution the world has ever seen in the last ten years. It is not because there are too many people, just that there are not enough good leaders. Imo... then again people that would make good leaders never look for leadership some quote from someone famous.